The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, even when interpreted in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, attached paramount importance to the rights of the abducted child over and above those of the mother and her other child.

Where a mother was unlawfully present in the United Kingdom the decision of a local authority to cease providing her and her two children with accommodation had not been unlawful, perverse or irrational, nor had it been in breach of Article 8.

Failure to inform the applicant of certain evidence of her alleged neglect of her children in court proceedings leading to a care order breached the procedural aspect of her right to a family life under Article 8.

The Chilren Act's prohibition on publishing material likely to identify any child involved in proceedings was limited to the duration of the proceedings, since it constituted a restriction on the media's right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

The Strasbourg Court has held, by a narrow majority, that there had been a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 where a homosexual woman applying under domestic law to adopt a foreign child as a single person had been refused authorisation by state authorities.

An individual may rely on their personality rights under Article 8 to get paternity established in order to bolster any succession claim against a deceased father who had denied family ties in the past

There would be no breach of a child’s rights under Articles 6, 8 or 14 to make an order under the Children Act 1989 for the return of a child to Saudi Arabia as the country of his habitual residence in the care of his mother

No duty of care was owed by health professionals in the course of investigating child abuse to the parents suspected of responsibility for the abuse, providing they carried out that investigation in good faith.

In two related judgments, the Strasbourg Court considered child care proceedings and decided that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) in one case, and a violation of Article 8 in the other, for which non-pecuniary damages were available.

A mother separated from the father with care of children had no right in domestic law, under the Child Support Act 1991, to enforce her former husband's liability to pay maintenance. The Child Support Act did not infringe her right of access to a court under Article 6 because there was no subsisting civil right to sue.

The principle that doctors or social workers, who erroneously concluded that a child was at risk of abuse its parents should not be liable in negligence, was not rendered invalid by the fact that a parent might have a claim under Article 8 of the Convention after the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998

The decision of the House of Lords in JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust & Ors [2005] 2 AC 373 that investigating professionals did not owe a duty of care to parents suspected of child abuse had not been changed by the introduction of Article 8 ECHR into domestic law. Further, Article 8 cannot be harmonised with the common law principle of ‘duty of care’ as it is a wholly different legal construct.

The biological father (rather than the husband of the mother) was the legal father of twins, conceived during fertility treatment, where, by mistake, the mother had been impregnated with sperm from an unintended donor.

The failure by state authorities to compel defendants in paternity suits to undergo DNA tests was a disproportionate denial of the applicants personality rights under Article 8, in the absence of any other measures available to establish paternity.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Scottish law, which previously did not give unmarried fathers the right to take part in a hearing relating to a child with whom they have established family ties, is incompatible with human rights law.

A local authority's duty under Article 8 and child protection legislation was triggered by the presence of reasonable grounds to suspect significant harm and not any higher threshold even if the person being investigated had been acquitted in the criminal courts.

Where two legal advisers on either side of a case were cohabiting, that fact could give rise to an apprehension of bias, contrary to common law and the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6.

A declaration of breach of Article 8 was sufficient satisfaction where a mother had been insufficiently involved in the decision by the local authority to abandon a care plan for her rehabilitation with her child. The mother was not entitled to damages in addition to the declaration

The judge has unfettered discretion to join any person as respondent in adoption proceedings and in this case had acted correctly in joining the father despite the history of violence, avoiding the risk that the father would complain of denial of his Convention rights at a later date.

The claimant had the right to respect for his private life, in the sense of having knowledge of his identity including true paternity. He therefore was entitled to insist on an order for DNA tests to establish his paternity in order that he might seek a parental responsibility order.

Refusal of access to a father because of his 13 year old child's evidence in court did not breach his Article 8 rights but the differing burden of proof as between divorced and unmarried fathers breached Article 14.

Absolute privilege in defamation cases did not extend to statements made by a social worker in a child protection case conference; the court had to balance the Article 8 rights of the child against the parents' rights to reputation under Article 8.

In family proceedings, as in other forms of legal procedure, publicity should be the default position. The culture of privacy which has developed in the family courts should give way to a proper balancing act between freedom of information and the need for confidentiality. In such a balancing exercise there should be no presumption that the welfare of the child is paramount.

Failure to place neglected children on the Child Protection Register did amount to treatment contrary to Article 3, but the applicants had not been deprived of their right of access to court by the rule laid down by the House of Lords (X v Bedfordshire County Council)